Wednesday, February 19, 2020

Germany: Eight people shot dead at two shisha bars

Eight people are dead following two shootings at shisha bars in the western German city of Hanau.
At least five people were injured after gunmen opened fire at about 22:00 local time (21:00 GMT), police told the BBC.
Police added that they are searching for the suspects, who fled the scene and are currently at large.
The first shooting was at a bar in the city centre, while the second was in Hanau's Kesselstadt neighbourhood, according to local reports.
Police officers and helicopters are patrolling both areas.
An unknown number of gunmen killed three people at the first shisha bar, before driving to the second and shooting dead another five victims, regional broadcaster Hessenschau reports.
The motive for the attack is unclear, a police statement said.
Hanau, in the state of Hessen, is about 25km (15 miles) east of Frankfurt.
 A manhunt is underway for the perpetrators and a large team of police is involved.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51567971

Tucker Carlson Discusses Bernie Sanders -vs- Michael Bloomberg


On last night's Tucker Carlson broadcast he correctly notes the narrowing Democrat field is eventually going to come down to Bernie Sanders -vs- Michael Bloomberg.
During a Carlson monologue he outlines and eviscerates how Bloomberg is doing something never before seen in U.S. electoral politics.  Bloomberg’s strategy is to simply overwhelm the competition with cash and purchase the nomination from a DNC Club that supports his ‘never-Bernie’ efforts.



Sanders Fired From ...

Sanders Fired From 

Sanders Campaign 

For Refusing To Work


BURLINGTON, VT—Bernie Sanders has been fired from the Bernie Sanders campaign for refusing to work even a few hours a week.

The campaign released a statement Monday confirming that Bernie Sanders has been let go.

"I'm sorry, Bernie, but we're gonna have to let you go," said assistant campaign manager Mark Carl. "You lounge around all day just ranting about the bourgeoisie and the need for a revolution. But you only put in a few hours and just complain a lot, expecting other people to do all the hard labor."

Sanders slammed the campaign's decision: "Nobody has the desire and drive to seize the means of production that I do. I mean, I wouldn't personally be the one doing the seizing. I'd hire people for that. But still."

This isn't the first time Sanders was asked to leave an organization, such as the time he was kicked out of a commune for being lazy or the time he lost his job at a Vermont grocery store for making people stand in line for bread, just for fun. Sanders was reportedly angered by the grocery store's decision and vowed never again to work a job in his life, a vow he's kept religiously.

Epic – President Trump Holds Impromptu Tarmac Presser – Video and Transcript


Prior to boarding Air Force One for a trip to California, President Trump held an impromptu press conference with the media pool. The president took answers on any topic and covered a wide variety.  POTUS Trump seems to wear out the press pool. Too Funny.



Aston Martin puts planned WEC, Le Mans Hypercar entry on hold

February 19, 2020
LONDON (Reuters) – Aston Martin said on Wednesday it was putting on hold a planned entry into the World Endurance Championship (WEC) and Le Mans 24 Hours with its Valkyrie hypercar.
The British sportscar maker said this was due to proposed rule changes, although Le Mans organisers suggested the company’s business situation had played a part.
“This decision means that the Aston Martin Valkyrie Hypercar will not make its WEC debut at Silverstone in August 2020 or compete in the 2021 24 Hours of Le Mans,” the company said in a statement.
“Aston Martin will now pause as it considers whether to continue in any future prototype class,” it said.
The Automobile Club de l’Ouest (ACO) – which runs Le Mans – and the U.S.-based International Motor Sports Association (IMSA) announced last month they were harmonising the proposed Hypercar class. This will allow IMSA prototypes to compete for outright victory at Le Mans and the WEC in 2021-22.
Aston Martin Racing will continue to compete in a lower tier of sportscar racing with its Vantage GTE.
Reacting to the company’s announcement, the ACO said it was “perhaps not unexpected in light of the persistent rumours over the last six months concerning the fragility of the brand’s exposure in the rapidly evolving automotive market.”
It said it remained confident the Hypercar platform remained the right long-term solution for the WEC.

Sales of Aston Martin’s luxury sports cars have declined since the company floated on the London Stock Exchange in October 2018, putting the company’s shares and finances under sustained pressure.
Racing Point owner Lawrence Stroll bought a stake at the end of January, with that F1 team set to change its name to Aston Martin next season.
“Aston Martin’s ambition to compete for the overall victory in the 24 Hours of Le Mans remains undiminished, but it is only right that we reassess our position in light of a significant change in the landscape that was not anticipated when we committed last year,” said CEO Andy Palmer in the statement.
“We entered Aston Martin Valkyrie in WEC and at Le Mans with the understanding that we would be competing with similar machinery and like-minded manufacturers.”
The Valkyrie was created as part of a technology partnership between Aston Martin and Red Bull Advanced Technologies. The sportscar maker are title sponsors of the Red Bull F1 team until the end of this year.
https://www.oann.com/aston-martin-puts-planned-wec-le-mans-hypercar-entry-on-hold/

12 Years and counting.........


"We have less that 12 years before the climate changes such that we can not survive."

I have heard the following say this in the last several months:

Greta Thunberg
Albert Gore
Elizabeth Warren
Joe Biden
Eric Swallswell
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Tom Steyer
Too many movie stars.

So why do these actual Climatologists say they are stupid? Could it be because all of the people I mentioned are simply emotionally stunted Liberals incapable of thinking for themselves.

Let's face it folks when we read thesekinds of predictions and then qe see how stupidily wrong they were why bother?

“If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000,” claimed ecology professor Kenneth E.F. Watt at the University of California in 1970. “This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.”

Paul Ehrlich, who is perhaps best known for his 1968 book The Population Bomb, made similarly wild forecasts for the end of the millennium in a speech at the British Institute for Biology. “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people,” he claimed. “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000

The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be frantically fleeing from those regions of the globe. However, not only did the areas in question fail to produce a single “climate refugee,” by 2010, population levels for those regions were actually still soaring. 

the director of the UNEP’s New York office was quoted as claiming that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.” He also predicted “coastal flooding and crop failures” that “would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”

Read the lastest IPCC report, it is filled with global doom and gloom which of course will never happen.

The IPCC has also been relentlessly hyping the snowless winter scare, along with gullible or agenda-driven politicians. In its 2001 Third Assessment Report, for example, the IPCC claimed “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.” Again, though, the climate refused to cooperate. The year 2013, the last year for which complete data is available, featured the fourth-highest levels on record, according to data from Rutgers University’s Global Snow Lab. Spring snow cover was the highest in a decade, while data for the fall indicate that it was the fifth highest ever recorded. Last December, meanwhile, brought with it a new high record in Northern Hemisphere snow cover, Global Snow Lab data show.

So, Greta Thunberg says "How Dare You, you have stolen my future"

Damn are they dumb, but who is dumber these lying alarmists with an agenda of the fools who follow them?

Democrats worried about...


Democrats worried about Trump's growing strength

Senate Democrats are privately acknowledging that President Trump will be very tough to beat in November if the economy stays strong and he draws on the substantial advantages of running as an incumbent.

Publicly, Democratic lawmakers are putting on a brave face, but behind closed doors anxiety is mounting over the unraveling of former Vice President Joe Biden’s White House bid and the failure of impeachment to put a dent in Trump’s approval ratings.

One of the chief concerns is that Trump, who has a virtually uncontested path to the Republican nomination, will have a big head start to prepare for the general election.

His reelection campaign is already spending heavily to reach out to voters on Facebook, and the Republican Party is solidly unified behind him.

Meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) victory in Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary has made clear to some Senate Democrats that the party’s primary is likely to drag on for months.

In particular, they worry the party will remain divided until the summer convention and fear a reprise of 2016, when lingering resentment among Sanders’s supporters over the Democratic National Committee’s favoritism toward eventual nominee Hillary Clinton dampened voter turnout in the fall. 

“I hear comments all the time that after what’s happened in the first two primaries we only have a 50-50 chance. It’s not looking good,” said a Democratic senator who requested anonymity to talk about the private concerns of colleagues. 

One of the biggest surprises to lawmakers is the poor performance of Biden, who has performed well against Trump in hypothetical match-ups.

Though Biden led his Democratic rivals in national polls over the past several months, he finished in fourth place in the Iowa caucuses, with 15 percent of the vote, and dropped to fifth place in the New Hampshire primary, with a paltry 8 percent. 

Other red flags are Trump’s resilient approval rating, despite months of an impeachment inquiry followed by a weeks-long trial, and the amount of money his campaign is raising and spending. 

The Democratic senator said mounting anxieties are “reflective of not just the candidacies but of how Trump is raising all this money and how he’s really focused.”

“They’re targeting their people, they’re going to get their people out,” the lawmaker added.

An analysis by The Guardian newspaper found that Trump spent nearly $20 million on 218,000 Facebook ads in 2019, far surpassing the leading Democratic candidates.

That dynamic has only begun to shift recently as former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has spent more than Trump on Facebook and Instagram ads since Jan. 1. 

But Bloomberg, a billionaire who is self-financing his campaign, didn’t compete in Iowa and New Hampshire, and it remains to be seen if the onetime Republican can energize Democratic voters. 

Bloomberg has only recently emerged as a viable candidate, and some Democratic senators wonder how well a businessman who amassed tens of billions of dollars through a publishing company catering to Wall Street clients will play with the base. 

Trump has also reported impressive fundraising numbers. The Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign said they raised $60.6 million in January and $525 million since January of last year.

The Democratic presidential field and the Democratic National Committee raised a combined $580 million in 2019, but much of what the candidates have raised has been quickly spent in the battle for the nomination.

Democratic candidates have also had to weather attacks from each other. Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are absorbing blows for their support of “Medicare for All,” while former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg has been knocked for his lack of experience. Biden, meanwhile, has been forced to defend controversial votes he cast during a long Senate career. 

Several Democratic candidates, including Biden, Sanders, Warren and Buttigieg, are beating Trump head to head in recent national polls, but the president had a small lead over every potential rival except Biden in Wisconsin, a key battleground state, according to a Marquette poll in December.

The chief worry among congressional Democrats is that if the party doesn’t settle on a nominee until the convention in mid-July, Trump will have a substantial organizing advantage.

“You hear everybody talk, ‘If we take all that time, how are they going to be able to get organized to combat what [the president] is doing?’” the senator said.

A second Democratic senator confirmed there is broad concern among colleagues over what they see as a difficult path to beating Trump and stressed that is why it will be extremely important for everyone to embrace the eventual nominee, even if that candidate is viewed by some as too liberal or too moderate.

“It is a concern because we had such a bitter divide four years ago,” the senator said, referring to the misgivings Sanders supporters had over Clinton winning the nomination. 

The lawmaker noted that the public has gotten used to what Democrats — and many Republicans — see as Trump’s outrageous behavior while the president has racked up a string of recent accomplishments, such as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, a truce in the trade war with China and strong employment numbers.

“It’s given him a lot to talk about, and people have kind of become used to his misbehavior,” the second senator said. “I think everyone’s very nervous right now, and that nervousness is contributing to this sense of, whoever wins [the nomination], we’ve got to be there together.”

Publicly, some Democratic lawmakers insist they’re feeling optimistic after Iowa and New Hampshire, where Sanders, a candidate many of them view as less electable than Biden, tied for first and won outright, respectively.

“I love the fact that we had the highest voter turnout, I think, above 2008. That’s very exciting,” Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) said of the New Hampshire primary, where nearly 300,000 people cast ballots. “We’re just beginning the primary process, but I think this is very positive.”

Turnout in Iowa, however, was below 2008 levels. 

Stabenow acknowledged the picture is muddled heading into Super Tuesday on March 3. Asked to name the front-runner at this point, she responded, “I don’t think there is one.” 

But she argued that fellow Democrats need to calm down. 

“As usual, we as Democrats are always panicked. And it’s too early to panic,” she said. 

Democratic lawmakers, however, were dismayed by signs that Trump’s approval ratings got stronger over the course of the impeachment process, which fired up the GOP base and failed to register as a priority among independents and swing voters — even though a large majority of them agreed with Democrats that new witnesses and subpoenas should have been considered at Trump’s trial. 

The president’s approval rating has been trending up since the end of October, when Democrats had the most political momentum behind their impeachment inquiry after two associates of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani were arrested at Dulles International Airport and former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testified before the House.

The president’s approval rating dipped to 41.6 percent on Oct. 26 but has since climbed to 45.3 percent, according to an average of polls compiled by RealClearPolitics. 

Trump registered a 49 percent job approval rating in a Gallup tracking poll in early February, the highest mark since he took office. 

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said he’s surprised that Trump’s conduct, which GOP senators such as Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) and Lisa Murkowski(Alaska) have called “inappropriate” and “shameful,” hasn’t had more of an effect on public opinion. 

“I think it’s not that things aren’t going well for Democrats, I don’t think that’s the case. I think things are going better for Donald Trump than expected. I would have thought the people of this country would not want someone who lies as president, would not want somebody who demeans others,” Cardin said.

“All these things are just against our values,” he added. “I thought that in time would erode a significant amount of support, and although it has eroded some of his support [it’s] much less than I thought.”



How The Ruling Class Might Elect Bloomberg and Realign American Politics



Imagining a Democratic Party schism, a third-party Sanders insurgency, and a presidential election thrown to the House of Representatives.

The Democratic Party’s establishment might well succeed in making Michael Bloomberg president of the United States—not on Election Night 2020, however. But it could happen if a third party were to win some electoral votes and, with no candidate receiving a majority of them, the House of Representatives was called upon to choose between the top-two electoral vote-getters.

Today’s civil war within the Democratic Party makes it possible that two candidates will come from it: Bernie Sanders for the Woke Left, and Bloomberg for the establishment. In that case, enough establishment Republicans in the House might join their establishment Democratic colleagues to defeat Trump. This would realign U.S. politics: a consolidated, single, left-trending establishment party would rule, opposed by the extreme Left as well as by the Right.

Here is how it might come about.

Today, the Democratic Party establishment is realizing that, in its present condition, it cannot win the 2020 presidential election and is likely to lose Congress as well. That is why it is scrambling to grab onto Michael Bloomberg, who is scrambling to adapt himself to the Democratic Party’s unpresentable wokeness. But integrating Bloomberg into today’s Democratic Party won’t work.

On the other hand, both the party’s growing woke faction and the establishment seem less interested in winning the election than in capturing the party. How will this mess play out? The Sandersistas are likely to win the party. But if they do, they are sure to lose the election. The establishment is likely to lose the party. But if they do, they might still win the election.

One thing is clear: Neither side can tolerate the marriage between a thoroughly woke Democratic Party and Michael Bloomberg.

For the Sandersistas to support Bloomberg as their candidate would require self-abnegation of which few humans are capable. Their troops, and maybe even their officers (or, at least, “intersectionally,”) really do believe in the woke agenda. They despise Wall Street and the thousands of so-called business people whose fortunes depend on government as well as the government-employed and government-connected people who run their party.

They resent having been robbed of the 2016 presidential nomination. But at least Hillary Clinton was a Democrat. Being robbed again in 2020 for Bloomberg, who personifies everything they detest and whose mouthing of woke platitudes adds hypocritical insult to injury, is unendurable.

Nor does Bloomberg’s integration into the Democratic Party add more votes than it would cost. The more he simulates wokeness in a foredoomed attempt to appeal to the Sandersistas, the likelier he is to alienate at least one of the constituencies the party deems essential to victory.

For example, the mythical “college-educated suburban woman” (a.k.a. soccer mom) is no fan of confiscatory “wealth taxes,” or of losing her cushy medical insurance, or of demonizing her husband. In short, if the establishment Democratic Party wants to use Bloomberg to reassure Americans frightened by the Wokerati, it must emphasize his un-woke record as New York City’s mayor.

But that means thoroughly alienating the Sandersistas. They lack the party machinery. But they have their own, as well as millions of sure voters. If the party were to engineer Bloomberg’s nomination, they are almost sure to mount their own candidacy.

The Democratic Party’s scariness arguably is the chief reason why Trump was elected in 2016 and is likely to be re-elected by a bigger margin. More people vote for Trump than approve of him. The woke Left’s divorce, however, might well give establishment Democrats just the certificate of safety they need to appeal to whomever dislikes Trump for whatever reason.

The 2020 presidential contest between Trump, Bloomberg, and Sanders, then, would give voters two different sets of reasons for saying no to Trump, each embodied by a different set of people.

The limited appeal of the wokes’ litany of class war, racism, sexism, etc. might not deliver more electoral votes than Vermont’s, Massachusetts’, and D.C,’s. But the wokes’ votes, added to those of a Democratic establishment that campaigned for a “return to normalcy” under a candidate who personifies sober seriousness, might well hold Trump below a majority in the Electoral College.

Professional politicians, very much including establishment Republican congressmen, despise Trump and are contemptuous and fearful of their own conservative voters. Were the 2020 election thrown into the House of Representatives, some Republicans might seize the opportunity, by voting for Bloomberg, to transition into a political identity more to their taste, with a Democratic Party that itself had undergone an amputation to transition into an explicitly establishment party. These erstwhile Republicans could expect rich rewards, having helped to secure a presidential election and brought their favorite voters into the Democratic fold.

The realignment of American politics—the ruling class’s representatives on one side and all their opponents on the other—is happening apace. The scenario outlined above is one of the many paths that this realignment can take.

Strength: With Economic Satisfaction High....


Strength: 
With Economic Satisfaction High, 
Dems Fret About Trump Enthusiasm and Organization

Strength: With Economic Satisfaction High, Dems Fret About Trump Enthusiasm and Organization

As their unpredictable nominating process chugs forward, 2020 Democrats are getting lots of media attention, but a story in Politico covers how the Trump campaign's over-performances in (basically) uncontested GOP contests thus far could be a sign of robust organization and high enthusiasm heading into general election season.  Should the opposition party be nervous about the incumbent's show of strength?

President Donald Trump doesn’t have much of a primary fight on his hands — but Republican voters are nevertheless turning out in droves for him, a warning sign for Democrats in November. The massive turnout is a reflection of organic enthusiasm among conservatives and a sophisticated effort by Trump's campaign to rev up its get-out-the-vote machine ahead of the general election...The efforts are paying off, with Republicans turning out in historic numbers. Trump received more than 31,000 votes in the Iowa caucus, surpassing the 25,000 Democrats who turned out during Barack Obama’s successful 2012 reelection bid. Trump’s share was more than four times the number of Republicans who caucused during George W. Bush’s 2004 reelection campaign.  The vote totals in New Hampshire were even starker. The president received 129,696 votes, more than doubling Obama and Bush's totals. While it’s unclear what the figures might portend for the general election — the president's job approval numbers remain stuck in the mid-40s in most surveys — the results highlight the degree to which Trump’s base is energized.
I'm certainly not of a mind that these results don't matter at all.  Iowa and New Hampshire are not only early nominating states but also 2020 battlegrounds.  For Trump to flex electoral support at these levels while 'competing' against token opposition is a significant and positive sign for his re-election campaign.  That said, the caveat about the uncertainty of how outcomes like do or do not foreshadow what's coming in the fall is obviously a reality check.  In spite of all the superb news and good vibes among the electorate, President Trump's job approval ratings remain lukewarm at best.  Team Trump knows this, course, so they're playing to their candidate's strengths.  Here's the ad they ran during the Daytona 500, at which the president made quite a splash over the weekend:

This exchange on ABC News' Sunday program underscores the struggle Democrats are going to have in attempting to criticize the incumbent's job performance on the economy: 


Recent Gallup polling shows Trump holding a 63 percent economic approval rating, with large majorities expressing optimism and satisfactionover their lives. Former President Obama weighed in on Twitter yesterday in an effort to claim some credit for the current boom:
Obama presided over some positive developments, to be sure, but his 'Recovery' Act was extraordinarily wasteful and failed on its advocates' own benchmarks, other major policies held back job and GDP growth, and the comeback he's touting was the slowest US recovery since World War II.  The Trump economy, unleashed by tax and regulatory reform, is stronger than Obama's economy in nearly every way.  I'll leave you with a reminderthat, by a double digit margin, voters assign more credit to the 45th president than his immediate predecessor:

Alexander Vindman Is Not Owed an Apology, He’s Owed an Investigation



Alexander Vindman was one of the more grating characters that tried to make a name for himself during Trump’s impeachment. An Army officer, he shamelessly shouted about his “patriotism” in an attempt insulate himself from all criticism.

Of course, the media (including some in conservative circles) played along, pronouncing it absolutely off limits to question Vindman’s reasoning and motives. You may have noticed, but there’s a clown nose on, clown nose off routine when it comes to the military and Trump opponents. If it’s Michael Flynn, you can trash him relentlessly as a Russian asset despite his decorated career of service. But if a military member speaks against Trump, they immediately gain protective status and it becomes “gross” to suggest they could be political.

Hilariously, some are actually demanding that Vindman receive an apology from Republicans. Rep. Lee Zeldin responded with a reality check on that front.

Let’s recap exactly what Vindman did.

He was on the July 2019 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky. On that call, there was no illegal order given, nor any explicit quid pro quo demanded. Vindman then went and leaked the details of that call to Eric Ciaramella (the whistle-blower), who was not even a part of the NSC.

That means Vindman not only went outside the chain of command, he probably committed a crime in the process. The phone call in question was classified as top secret, and it’s very unlikely that Ciaramella had the proper clearance to receive it.

Further, Vindman admitted during his testimony that he was undermining Trump’s policy goals in Ukraine, essentially trying to run his own foreign policy shop. Regardless of whether Vindman felt his ideas were better or he was “protecting the country,” it was not his place to go around the elected President. Those kinds of actions that spit on electoral accountability are incredibly dangerous (but certainly not uncommon in our bureaucracies).

The idea that Vindman is owed an apology is laughable. He’s owed an investigation. Unfortunately, the military was profoundly changed under the Obama administration and the current leadership refuses to even look into it.

The moral of the story: You can be an Army officer who leaks classified information and undermines the Commander in Chief as long as you shout orange man bad loud enough.

President Trump’s list of pardons and grants of clemency make a lot of sense


 Image result for picture of the oval office
Article by Andrea Widburg in "The American Thinker":

On Tuesday, the White House named the individuals whom President Trump pardoned or to whom he had granted clemency. People on both sides of the aisle were confused by the list but they shouldn’t have been. Trump was making a point about government overreach in prosecutions, as well as reminding people about his First Step Act, which brings reformed (mostly minority) prisoners home.

Here’s a short rundown of the pardons and clemency grants.

Pardons
Eddie DeBartolo, Jr., former owner of the San Francisco 49ers, who was “convicted for failing to report a felony regarding payment demanded for a riverboat casino license,” resulting in 2 years’ probation.

Michael Milken, a brilliant financier whose innovations made capital available to people who ordinarily would never have benefitted from it.
In 1989, at the height of his finance career, Mr. Milken was charged in an indictment alleging that some of his innovative financing mechanisms were in fact criminal schemes.  The charges filed against Mr. Milken were truly novel.  In fact, one of the lead prosecutors later admitted that Mr. Milken had been charged with numerous technical offenses and regulatory violations that had never before been charged as crimes.  Though he initially vowed to fight the charges, Mr. Milken ultimately pled guilty in exchange for prosecutors dropping criminal charges against his younger brother.  As a result, Mr. Milken served 2 years in prison in the early 1990s.

Ariel Friedler, an entrepreneur who built a successful technology company and who “pled guilty to conspiracy to access a protected computer without authorization and served 2 months in prison.”

Bernard Kerik, the Commission of the New York Police Department during its response to the 9/11 attack. “In 2010, Mr. Kerik was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment for tax fraud and for making false statements.”

Paul Pogue, the owner of a successful construction company:
An audit by the Internal Revenue Service discovered that Mr. Pogue had underpaid his taxes over a 3-year period by approximately 10 percent.  Immediately upon learning of the tax deficiency, Mr. Pogue paid restitution, interest, and penalties.  To avoid the cost and burden of fighting the charges, which could have put at risk the jobs of the 150 people employed by his company, Mr. Pogue agreed to plead guilty and was sentenced to 3 years of probation. 

David Safavian, who was “convicted of making false statements and of obstructing an investigation into a trip he took while he was a senior government official.”

Angela Stanton, an African-American woman and Trump supporter who, following a challenging childhood, was part of a stolen vehicle ring, which earned her six months of house arrest.

Commuted sentences
Rod Blagojevich, a model prisoner who was 9 years into a 14-year sentence for a variety of political corruption charges.

Tynice Nichole Hall, a model prisoner who served “served nearly 14 years of an 18-year sentence for allowing her apartment to be used to distribute drugs.”

Crystal Munoz, a model prison who “spent the past 12 years in prison as a result of a conviction for having played a small role in a marijuana smuggling ring.”

Judith Negron, a model prisoner and “a 48-year-old wife and mother who was sentenced to 35 years in prison for her role as a minority-owner of a healthcare company engaged in a scheme to defraud the Federal Government.”

What’s the thread tying all of these pardons and commutations together? In fact, there are a few threads and they’re all important.

DeBartolo, Milken, Kerik, Pogue, and Safavian all fell into federal traps. Each was entangled in the federal justice system because the government went after them for violating rules that relate solely to the government itself. Their situations parallel what happened to Trump associates caught in Mueller’s net.

In Milken’s case, he gave up fighting an esoteric allegation only because prosecutors threatened his brother -- which mirrors the way Mueller's team threatened Mike Flynn’s son.

Trump reminds us that the government writes the laws and regulations, and then uses those laws against people whom the government wants to destroy, whether righteously (e.g., Al Capone, brought down on tax fraud) or not (e.g., the people Trump pardoned). These pardons remind us that, while Trump survived, many of his associates did not.

David Safavian reminds us that McCabe walked free. Blagojevich reminds us that Trump not only doesn’t prosecute people because of their ideology, he’ll also reach across party lines to grant clemency.

The pardons and commutations for lesser-known people emphasize Trump’s outreach to black and Hispanic communities through his First Step Act.

Trump is a very sane genius. 

Barack Obama: A Traitor for the Ages

 Image result for cartoons about obama
Article by John Eidson in "The American Thinker":

Given America’s deplorable history of slavery and segregation, all Americans should be proud that their country had the courage to elect its first black president.  With invaluable assistance from a cheerleading media, a young and charismatic Barack Obama was swept into the most powerful job in the world with the enthusiastic endorsement of a sizable majority of the American electorate.  More than three years after leaving office, he remains one of the most influential political figures in America.

But is that plaudit warranted? These days, a look at his past suggests an exceptionally anti-American orientation, and as Obama's Democrats now swing even farther left, this history is worth a look.

Presenting himself in 2008 as a political moderate who fully embraced America’s two-party constitutional democracy and its free-market capitalist economy, Obama’s ideological beliefs were never closely examined by the mainstream media.  But as his presidency unfolded, serious questions began to pile up about who he really was, specifically how closely he was aligned with the oppressive theories of Marx and Lenin.  Obama denied being a Bolshevik, but many objective people doubted that assertion based on the long trail of troubling circumstantial evidence. 

Following are parts of his past pointing to the suspicion that despite promising to be the most transparent president ever, he carefully concealed that core ideology.

In his 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father, Obama described the only six months he would ever work for a profit-making company as “working for the enemy,” adding that he felt like “a spy behind enemy lines.”  Obama also acknowledged in Dreams an affinity he had for Marxist professors, yet he has refused to release his transcripts of his years at Columbia, a university known as a hotbed of Marxist professors and student groups.  Release of those records could provide important clues about his true ideological leanings.

In Dreams, Obama made numerous admiring references to Frank Marshall Davis, arguably his single most influential adolescent mentor.  The subject of a 600-page FBI file, Davis was a pro-Soviet, card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA.  When Obama released a 2005 audio version of Dreams in anticipation of running for president, all references to Davis were quietly purged.  In attempting to grind down the country he despised, Davis employed the class warfare tactics called for in The Communist Manifesto.  Davis’s communist views would later be adopted by his most famous protégé, as evidenced by the class warfare strategy Obama used in his 2012 re-election campaign against Mitt Romney.

When Obama moved to Chicago two years after graduating from Harvard, he developed a close, 20-year association with Rev. Jeremiah “God d--n America” Wright.  As pastor of Trinity United Methodist Church, Wright taught black liberation theology, a religious doctrine predicated on the perceived perpetual existence of an oppressor class (a predominately white society) vs. a victim class (people of color).  Victim vs. oppressor ideology is classic Marxism.  Obama had another important mentor from Chicago, Saul Alinsky.  In his revolutionary book Rules for Radicals, the Marxist community organizer wrote, “The despair is there; it’s now up to us to rub raw the wounds of discontent and galvanize them for radical social change.”  The radical change to which he referred is the transformation of America into a single-party socialist nation.

In 1995, Obama began his political career in the living room of Bill Ayers, a self-declared communist revolutionary who has worked his entire adult life toward the destruction of America’s capitalist system.  To save his campaign, Obama dismissed Ayers as “just a guy who lives in my neighborhood, not someone I regularly exchange ideas with.”  But as reported by The Wall Street Journal, an investigation showed otherwise.  In 2001, a defiant Bill Ayers demonstrated his disdain for America by consenting to be photographed trampling on the U.S. Flag.  Seven years later, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama revealed his own low regard for the Flag by refusing to wear a lapel pin bearing its image, a position he later was forced to reverse out of political necessity.

In an unguarded moment while speaking with “Joe the Plumber” on the 2008 campaign trail, Obama was recorded saying that he intended to “spread the wealth around.”  Seven years earlier, he lamented that the Supreme Court was not structured to bring about “major redistributive change.”  Wealth redistribution is the foremost command of communism.

As president, Obama appointed an assortment of people with extreme-left views to key positions in his administration, including: former White House green jobs czar Van Jones, a self-avowed communist; FCC chief diversity officer Mark Lloyd, who expressed admiration for Venezuela’s communist strongman, Hugo Chavez; White House communications director Anita Dunn, who told a high school graduating class that Mao is one of her most admired philosophers; and, White House manufacturing czar Ron Bloom, who said he agrees with Mao that “political power comes largely at the barrel of a gun.”

During his eight years in office, Obama routinely exhibited contempt for America and its capitalist system.  In referring to his “You didn’t build that!” admonition directed at private sector job creators, The Wall Street Journal observed that “rarely do politicians so clearly reveal their core beliefs.”  In September 2011, Obama showed his full-throated support of the anti-capitalist Occupy Wall Street protests by announcing, “We are on their side.”  An influential group of hardened anti-capitalists known at the highest levels of the Democratic Party, OWS’s behind-the-scenes leaders have long sought the total destruction of America’s capitalist system.  In a pre-rally pep talk to Occupy protestors in Chicago, OWS inspiration Bill Ayers — the same Bill Ayers in whose living room Obama launched his political career — said this: “I wake up every morning thinking that today will be the day I end capitalism.”

In March 2016, when he no longer faced re-election, and with communist officials of Castro’s murderous regime standing beside him, Obama defiantly posed in front of a six-story statue of one of communism’s most celebrated icons, Ernesto “Che” Guevara.  To those who question Obama’s true ideological beliefs, posing in front of a six-story likeness of Guevara is no different than posing in front of a massive likeness of Stalin.  Eight years earlier, a Cuban flag bearing an image of Guevara was removed from Obama’s Houston campaign office, but only after it was publicly revealed.  The Guevara flag doesn’t mean that Obama approves of the mass-murdering communist revolutionary, but does suggest his Houston campaign office had reason to believe he did.

Finally, five days before he was first elected, Obama made a statement that attracted little attention at the time, vowing to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.”  Caught up in the euphoria of Hope and Change, many who voted for him never thought to ask themselves, Transform it into what?  A long trail of compelling evidence leads to the unavoidable conclusion that his strategy from the beginning has been to carefully conceal his true ideology, while quietly working to transform America into a communist society, a total betrayal of the oath he took to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, including the hammer and sickle.  Without cover from the corrupt mainstream media, he would never have been elected.

Is Obama a traitor for the ages? You decide.

President Donald Trump to rally in Phoenix .

President Trump is gearing up for a 'Keep America Great' rally at the Arizona Veterans Memorial Coliseum in Phoenix. will provide full coverage of the event starting at 9 p.m. EST / 6 p.m. PST! #OANN
 

Michael Bloomberg Flunks Ag 101


 Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Article by Geoffrey P. Hunt in "The American Thinker":

Michael Bloomberg is no Ag PhD.

“You dig a hole, you put seed in it, you put dirt on top, up comes the corn…” Bloomberg couldn’t even describe planting a single corn seed correctly: he left out tossing a codfish into the hole alongside the seed.

Bloomberg made $ billions (after departing from Solomon Brothers as a general equity partner and cashing in $10 million of stock grants) in the early days of infotech, developing computerized metrics and data mining for securities trading.  Michael Bloomberg is no dope, so we thought.

Thirty minutes of research would have informed His Arrogancy that big-time crop farmers -- 2,000 acres or more- -- need to know everything from soil chemistry, to genetic engineering, to global commodities markets, to managerial economics, to GPS interfaces, and drone technology.

One of the more fascinating glimpses into plus-size producers of corn, soybeans, and wheat in flyover country can be had by listening to “Ag PhD,” an hour-long daily broadcast on Sirius Rural Radio at 2:00pm CST from Baltic, South Dakota.  Show hosts Darren and Brian Hefty, both agronomists, operate a seed/fertilizer wholesale business and farm 2,800 acres. They talk soil chemistry, bio-chem of weeds, seeds, mold, micro-organisms, commodity options pricing, and infrared cameras on drones to monitor late season moisture content, just for starters. Farmers from Ohio and Indiana, the Dakotas to Iowa to Missouri, to, Kansas, Colorado and Montana call in with questions only grad students in agronomy and ag economics would ask. Mike Bloomberg wouldn’t have a clue about the deciphering the questions. Forget about comprehending the answers.

Does brainiac Mike know why micro-nutrients -- boron, copper, manganese, molybdenum, zinc -- matter in achieving 300 bushel/acre corn or 60 bu/acre soybean yields? What about interactions amongst calcium, sulfur, and magnesium? Is organic matter nitrogen better than ammonia? What are the relationships between cat-ion exchange capacity, soil ph, and crop yield?

Does Mike know how to conduct grid soil sampling, overlaid with GPS coordinates, later downloaded to fertilizer spreaders and seed planters that can adjust application rates yard-by-yard in a row and fractions of an acre?  What does he know about pre-emerge genetically engineered seed treatment to control fungus, or to resist certain pests such as nematodes?

Mike, please describe the tradeoffs between root size, stem height and thickness, canopy spreads, number of pods vs seed mass?  Why and how would you conduct plant tissue assays? Till or no till? 30-inch rows or 15-inch rows? How does protein content affect commodity prices, and what is the equilibrium between higher protein and lower volume yield for soybeans?

Hey Mike, where did all of that N, K and P go anyhow between pre and post season soil tests? Hey Mike… do you even know what N,K, and P are?

How would you decide whether to invest in tile drainage for land that you rent or lease? What is the break-even point for a leasehold term when considering fixing long-term soil deficits in sulfur, calcium, and potassium on ground that you don’t own?

Bonus question: what is the optimal droplet size for midseason liquid foliar applications to minimize drift, while avoiding excessive saturation per leaf?

Michael Bloomberg’s condescension towards farmers is just another display of his nanny-state control fetishism and disdain for regular Joes and Janes, whatever their occupation, and whatever their skin color or station. Where only the elites, anointed by like-minded top-down big government overseers, relegate everybody else to caricatures of ignorant, bumfuzzled postmodern serfs, without the brains to self-govern.

Mike Bloomberg deserves a chapter unto himself in “The Ignorance and Tyranny of Self-Anointed Experts,” a book yet to be written. His disdain for the very folks that he expects will vote for him, the vast majority of whom are smarter than he is, just proves a pile of money, even $50 billion, can’t buy common sense. 

Perhaps Mike Bloomberg does know how to dig a hole.  And succeeding in digging a hole big enough for him to jump into, with only the top of his head showing. Of course, it helps that “mini Mike” doesn’t have far to dig. Yet as an overachiever, Mike Bloomberg can’t stop digging, while repeatedly resting on his garden spade to sprinkle insults on the very people who might lift him out.